Some Observations on the Regional Workshop Process: Where Do We Go From Here?

Anthony Socci

Introduction

In the period May-July 1997, four regional workshops were held. These were pioneering efforts to bring global change scientists and regional stakeholders together to communicate what was known and not known with respect to climate change, to identify key regional issues, and to discuss how to improve understanding of how best to cope with existing and future stresses. Experience with these workshops to date suggests certain approaches for ensuring continuity and a high level of effectiveness. Regardless of the approach, effective communication appears to be an underlying, critical element that will likely govern the success of this on-going effort .

Intensive efforts need to be devoted to contacting stakeholders and bringing them to the table.

I. Articulating the Objectives

It has seemed to prove useful to start each of the regional workshops by clearly stating the goals of the workshop and by placing the workshop activities into the broader framework of leading to a national assessment that is science based. Subsequently, the goals and objectives of the workshop, and their relation to the broader set of activities, need to be restated at key junctures within each workshop so as to keep everyone clearly focused on the goals, especially within breakout sessions. It is ideally useful to restate the goals and purpose of each workshop as the break-out groups are being charged with a task.

Suggestion A one or two-page handout could be provided to participants as part of their workshop package.

The lack of input and representation by a broad community of stakeholders is a serious drawback to capturing the key stakeholder issues and concerns within a region. Intensive efforts need to be devoted to contacting stakeholders and bringing them to the table. This normally requires that this be started very early in the workshop planning process.

Suggestion Each workshop's planning board could be composed of a broad mix of members ranging from academicians to business people to state and local government representatives to Native Americans, as specific circumstances and regions dictate. At least half of the panel could be comprised of members from the private sector, state and local government, and Native American communities, as these individuals may also provide additional links to other stakeholders.

Suggestion Various White House and federal agency offices ( e. g., press offices and public relations offices) could provide assistance in identifying and reaching out to stakeholders, and work closely with the regional workshop planning/steering committees. Inclusion and involvement should ideally occur as early as possible. Bringing stakeholders to the table after the process has begun is likely to be a considerably more formidable task.

Regional organizers should be wary of inadvertently subsuming the USGCRP/OSTP regional workshop activities into an existing regional assessment project or activity. Such a circumstance can lead to an identity crisis of sorts, resulting in confusion that may subsequently compromise the purpose and goals of the USGCRP/OSTP activity as well as the original activity.

It is useful to post a workshop outline with a general invitation to comment, on a Web site well prior to the meeting. Writing one or two paragraphs on the plenary and breakout sessions, describing what they are, why they are important, what the impacts are likely to be, who is involved, and who will be impacted has proven helpful.

II. Outreach and Planning Media/Communications Strategies:

Individuals versed in public affairs and media outreach should also be members of each workshop's planning board. This will provide:

Getting the press and media involved and interested has to begin very early on, well before the actual workshop. Federal agency press and public relations offices should also be called upon for assistance in the outreach process.

Suggestion Consider targeting natural trends or events in conjunction with workshop topics (e. g., El Niño).

Suggestion Consider inviting science educators that participate in the GLOBE program, or physicians conducting research on a host of environmental issues.

Suggestion Consider choosing a "catchier" workshop title with a "real world" approach to help make a connection between predicting weather and climate and assessing its impact in areas not conventionally considered.

Suggestion Design a logo specifically for the workshop rather than using a grouping of the logos of all of the sponsors.

Expertise is needed for effectively communicating science to a non-science audience.

III. Selecting Speakers

Excellent communication skills appear to be essential criteria for selecting speakers, chairs of break-out groups, and rapporteurs. Communicating at the appropriate level is crucial to engaging people and in keeping workshops running smoothly, staying focused, and achieving a useful product.

IV. Structuring the Agenda

A baseline educational component is needed in each workshop that will serve to identify what is known, what is not known, and what is meant by uncertainties with respect to climate change and climate impacts. Providing a regional flavor to these results has proven quite useful.

Background reading materials such as the IPCC WG I and II Summaries for Policymakers, Tom Karl's observational records of temperature and precipitation for regions of the U. S., and a smattering of key figures such as the ice core records of CO2 and temperature projected into the future can be quite useful. Tom Karl's figures and the ice core figure showing the extreme covariance of CO2 and temperature often prove to be clear and effective. Many people, including many scientists, are not familiar with the IPCC results and have never seen any of the above-mentioned figures.

It would be quite beneficial to have the IPCC conclusions presented by someone intimately familiar with the IPCC reports (especially Working Groups I and II). Describing the IPCC process itself should also be considered. Our experience to date suggests that all too often people selected regionally to present a summary of the IPCC results end up expressing the results ambiguously, or equivocate, or take issue with some of the conclusions, or have their personal take on certain conclusions, or identify criticisms around the margins but fail to effectively deal with them at their core. The net effect is to garble the summary points contained within the IPCC report or to render the IPCC essentially inconclusive.

Identify what is known, what is not known, and what is meant by uncertainties with respect to climate change and climate impacts.

Applying a statistical confidence level of 95 percent in order to ascribe certainty, or the lack thereof, as is standard procedure in science circles, often renders many robust conclusions in the IPCC inconclusive or significantly lacking in confidence or certainty, before a non-science audience. One should bear in mind that outside of science circles, many policy and business-related decisions are routinely made with far less statistical certainty, and often with no reference whatsoever, to requiring any degree of statistical certainty. In short, this rigorous statistical standard has little or no meaning for most people outside of scientific circles. Consequently, a great deal of the IPCC's strength is often lost or muddled in this process.

It would also be beneficial if the person selected to present the IPCC conclusions had some measure of political sensitivity and some feeling for expressing confidence levels and/or certainty, as they are understood and/or interpreted in non-scientific circles. This person should also be an excellent and effective communicator who is well versed in expressing science to non-science audiences.

Breakout session discussions have often proven relatively successful compared to more plenary presentations. More time needs to be scheduled for discussions and synthesis or integration of information, either in the breakout groups or in the plenary session or both.

With few exceptions, presentations of science have often been overly technical and employed charts and figures that are too detailed and difficult to read. More effort should be directed at selecting effective speakers and at presenting science clearly and articulately at the appropriate level for a non-scientific audience.

Having a keynote address by some well known regional, local, or national political figure, such as Vice President Gore in the case of the SE workshop, or the President's Science Advisor, Jack Gibbons, in the case of the NW workshop, is important in that it draws publicity and interest from all quarters while highlighting the seriousness of the issue. In any event, whomever is chosen to deliver the keynote address should also be well briefed in terms of the goals and purposes of the workshop, and its relationship to a larger and longer effort.

Besides arranging for breakout sessions as such, assure places in the agenda for brief summary reports from the breakout session groups to the group as a whole in order to identify overlaps, opportunities for cross-fertilization, and issues that have been overlooked.

Breakout groups work best when they are focused on key constraints and/or issues for the region that cut across conventional sectoral boundaries.

The breakout groups work best when they are focused on key constraints and/or issues for the region that cut across conventional sectoral boundaries. For example, land, ecological systems, and society are cross-cutting categories. Industry and agriculture are sectoral categories.

V. Engaging Stakeholders in the Process

Some have suggested that a workshop should begin with views from stakeholders within the region about current realities, economic and environmental status, environment-related stresses, and (as appropriate) views about climate variability and change issues. The experts should listen first, not stifle local expression by talking first.

Suggestion One approach might be to arrange a panel of stakeholders representing a balance of climate-sensitive activities in the region and invite them to offer their views at the outset without a specific focus on climate change issues, then listen to the expert overviews of climate change vulnerabilities, and then revisit regional interests/concerns in light of the climate change issues raised.

In preparation for the workshop, work closely with the non-research participants to provide them with background information, help them understand what will be going on, increase their confidence that they have something to contribute, and enable them both to appear and be well-informed as members of working groups.

Where Do We Go From Here?

To help in planning future activities, a number of questions need to be discussed at the workshops.

(1) How does each workshop or each workshop steering committee continue to engage and involve all of the relevant regional stakeholders and scientists in an on-going dialogue?

(2) How does each steering committee continue to build stakeholder involvement, especially in those regions where stakeholder participation was sparse?

(3) What is required to foster an on-going dialogue on regional climate vulnerabilities and multiple stresses?

(4) Are topics such as mitigation and adaptation options and strategies the logical progression to the first round of regional workshops? What about the issues of energy efficiency, energy efficient technologies, and new technologies as themes for future discussions within each region?

(5) What are the issues and themes that will help foster an on-going dialogue among the relevant regional stakeholders and scientists?

(6) How can an electronic list (fax and email) for each region be facilitated that will foster continued dialogue among stakeholders and scientists? Can these lists interact with other lists from other regions? What are the best ways to facilitate or enhance the ability of stakeholders to keep in touch (including use of regional web sites)?

(7) What about the issue of funding and funding responsibilities? What funding arrangements can be made to continue hosting periodic meetings with stakeholders?

(8) How can new and emerging science information be made available to each regional steering committee for distribution and discussion?

Work closely with the non-research participants to provide them with background information, help them understand what will be going on, and increase their confidence that they have something to contribute.

(9) Is there a need to set up a specific funding mechanism for the continuation of regional workshop activities and stakeholder outreach?

(10) What are the short-term, medium-term, and long-term information needs and requirements of each region?

(11) What role can and should the USGCRP, OSTP, and the various federal agencies play to help facilitate all of the above?

A workshop should begin with views from stakeholders within the region about current realities and stresses, and (as appropriate) views about climate variability and change issues.
Forward to Next Section//Back to Table of Contents//AGCI Homepage//Comments: agcimail@agci.org